Human consciousness is simply a state of matter, like a solid or liquid – but quantum

Share This article

Thanks to the work of a small group neuroscientists and theoretical physicists over the last few years, we may finally have found a way of analyzing the mysterious, metaphysical realm of consciousness in a scientific manner. The latest breakthrough in this new field, published by Max Tegmark of MIT, postulates that consciousness is actually a state of matter. “Just as there are many types of liquids, there are many types of consciousness,” he says. With this new model, Tegmark says that consciousness can be described in terms of quantum mechanics and information theory, allowing us to scientifically tackle murky topics such as self awareness, and why we perceive the world in classical three-dimensional terms, rather than the infinite number of objective realities offered up by the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Consciousness has always been a tricky topic to broach scientifically. After all, science deals specifically with effects that can be observed and described mathematically, and consciousness has heretofore successfully evaded all such efforts. In most serious scientific circles, merely mentioning consciousness might result in the rescinding of your credentials and immediate exile to the land of quacks and occultists. (Read: How to create a mind, or die trying.)

A stunning image of the neurons in a human hippocampus

But clearly, consciousness — or sentience or soul or whatever else you call the joie de vivre that makes humans human — is a topic that isn’t going away. It’s probably awfully pretentious of us to think that consciousness is the unique reserve of humans — but hey, evolution handed us these giant, self-aware brains, and so we’re going to try our damnedest to work out whether consciousness is a real thing — whether our brains really are tied into some kind of quantum realm — or if we’re all just subject to an incredibly complex Matrix-like simulation put on by our hyper-imaginative and much-too-powerful human brain. (Read: MIT discovers the location of memories: Individual neurons.)

The latest attempts to formalize consciousness come from Giulio Tononi, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who proposed the integrated information theory (IIT) model of consciousness — and now Max Tegmark of MIT, who has attempted to generalize Tononi’s work in terms of quantum mechanics. In his research paper, “Consciousness as a State of Matter” [arXiv:1401.1219], Tegmark theorizes that consciousness can be understood as a state of matter called “perceptronium” that can be differentiated from other kinds of matter (solids, liquids, gases) using five, mathematically sound principles.

The paper, as you can imagine, is a beastly 30-page treatise, but the Physics arXiv Blog does a good job of summarizing it (if you’re comfortable with quantum mechanics, anyway). In short, though, it outlines Tononi’s ITT — that consciousness results from a system that can store and retrieve vast amounts of information efficiently — and then moves onto his own creation, perceptronium, which he describes as “the most general substance that feels subjectively self-aware.” This substance can not only store and retrieve data, but it’s also indivisible and unified (this is where we start to wander into the “here be dragons” realm of souls and spirits and so forth). The rest of the paper mostly deals with describing perceptronium in terms of quantum mechanics, and trying to work out why we steadfastly perceive the world in terms of classical, independent systems — rather than one big interconnected quantum mess. (He doesn’t have an answer to this question, incidentally.)

Tegmark’s paper doesn’t get to the point where we can suddenly say what causes or creates consciousness, but it does go some way towards proving that consciousness is governed by the same laws of physics that govern the rest of the universe — that there isn’t some kind of “secret sauce,” as postulated by mystics and religious types since time immemorial. As far as science is concerned, that’s a rather big relief.

Tagged In

Post a Comment

talmagr

A postulation is speculation based on known facts, theories and guesses that neither can be counted as fact or explanation. In fact, I have found consciousness as a multi-faceted continuum of perception and awareness. Education and known science can get us only so far in describing the intangible state of awareness that consciousness is. It is possible to make it tangible, but not in this particular line of thinking. It is not a solid or a liquid, but has properties of both, but it does not describe it. I applaud the effort, and with each educated guess, we step further into the unknown, thereby making the unknown into a known fact. It is partly correct, but we need to keep going to conceive of the modus operandi.

Justin

Do you think at some point in the future we will be able to create consciousness? in the next100 years? more?

Mojo

As much as we’d love to play God, we’re never going to be able to make a person…

It would indeed be fascinating to have a Mr. Data from The Next Generation around, but all he’d be would be a set of very complex programs. He’d never have the “breath of life”. But at this point of the converstaion, we’d start debating world views (creation by a Supreme Being vs. evolving from slime that came from rocks that came from nowhere) and we wouldn’t see eye to eye no matter how long we debated.

Let’s just hope it’s Mr. Data’s we create, and not the cylons…

Martin Dluhoš

If we can take experience from the Earths history into account, I would guess that with a high probability we will create all of that, Mr. Data, cylons, borgs, skynet, etc. I think that our universe is so big that each of this “things” will happen at least hunderts of times.

Mojo

I’m not sure what you mean by taking the Earth’s history into account, unless you mean that we’ve progressed technologically very fast, and, to be sure, we may indeed come up with some extremely sophisticated robots that do indeed seem intelligent because they were programed to be that way. But the size of the universe doesn’t have anything to do with that. Again, that goes back to fundamental world views. Does your faith begin like Carl Sagan’s with “The cosmos is all there is and all that every will be”, or does your faith say that “the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork”? If Carl’s, then sure, if you can break all the laws of physics and get to the next solar system in your life time, the universe if your playground and anything is possible.

Vlad

I think what he means is, if we can there will be a person that will
create it. When we can create artificial conciseness there will be
people that will create Mr.Data but there will also be people that will
create terminators and cylons and the borg. One of the things that sets us apart from the rest of the creatures on this planet is that we can turn anything Into a weapon.

Barry Ferguson

Says who, exactly? What are you if not a series of very complex programs made via DNA and other natural processes?

In your case, not so complex; I’m guessing it is fairly easy to program something to live in its Mom’s basement and surf gay porn all day. Ill give you the benefit of a doubt, however: maybe you have a job at the local burger drive-thru.

Barry Ferguson

Snore

TheLoneDissenter

Oh yeah and sleep – you probably do a lot of that in your Mom’s basement as well.

bertgoz

This assume consciousness will magically occur if you put all the pieces of a brain in place. Most likely we will still be missing the fundamental piece that generate consciousness as this paper describes

Justin

But we are already able to do that through cloning, it’s just using the DNA genetic makeup to create an identical replica.

Bartek Ciorga

Imagine creating conscience by trial and error. It might also be the most painful experience for the brain that we opt to create. The ultimately demanding task.

Sure we are not going to make a PERSON, but consciousness is not a PERSON. We can make a conscious computer simply by giving it the proper hardware to support the evolution and development of consciousness. Self – aware, able to receive some kind of input, the free will to make decisions based on said input, and enough memory and processing power to learn from past decisions. viola! Consciousness!

RadicalFrantical

I guess it all comes down to one thing, in which I believe we all can agree on, if one was to go waay back to the beginning of time and ask how everything began? The most logical explanation would be that it(whatever started the universe etc.) must have been created in order to exist. In other words the most powerful being of all time (I like to believe a creator(God)) have to exist for Anything to be here today.

Thus the question: How would us immortals ever be capable to create true consciousness(as in NOT complex algorithms/AI)??

Thought not available to the public eye, there are AI programs running on neural net computers that mimic human consciousness, To be an aware soul, however is another matter. In the near future, the truth will be revealed to everyone. There is not a long time to wait.

Justin

Incorporating the advances in bioengineering into these AI programs may very well make it possible. I think it’s fair to say that we can “make” consciousness using bioengineering – take cloning for example. Perhaps if we are to overlay bioengineering onto technology, we are essentially creating a cyborg and not AI, but it could be considered conscious right? They already have a mouse brain interacting with hardware, which is serving as its memory bank. If you grow a brain in a petri dish and put it in a mechanical body is that consicouness?

Sandschafer

My intuition tells me that there may be something wrong headed about trying to separate consciousness from life. Does consciousness presuppose life? If so how does this make us think about AI.

We’d have to effectively define consciousness first, something that science and philosophy have been struggling to do since at least Descartes proposed his infamous Cogito. At the rate we’re going I’d say >100 years.

Nicholas VanLandingham

We will most certainly be able to replicate it by then. Imagine downloading your consciousness into a computer. Some tranhumanist believe this event will be the singularity. When we no longer need our bodies. The only problem is that the same people who believe in all this also believe that 90% of the worlds poulation should be exterminated.

TheMatrixDNA

This effort is biased, waste of time and money. Reason and logic suggests another method, other modus operandi for researching about consciousness. This issue is not for Physics and Math. They are good for researching about the skeleton of the human body, not for studying the cover of fresh meat and the brain! It is an absurd! And it is not for scientific reductionism, it is for scientific systemic method, because the mind must be a new shape of natural systems.

The unique application for quantum mechanics here would be the scientists trying to capture the forces linking the mind to the behavior of particles, developing new instruments, but focused on the brain and not on the particle. Instruments focused on particles and its forces is another field, for Physics. At Matrix/DNA Theory we are interested on those instruments for optical Physics, because we are confident that the substance of mind is related to pure natural light. And we are composing the mind anatomically, as a system containing nucleus and interacting parts.

Headsmart

Im sure the CIA has already both intimately and elegantly quantified the science of consciousness by now.

eonvee375

i think its a step in the right direction ^^

DoctorBored

The link is fantastic. It really breaks it down, with the only limitation being the association with the Hopfield neural net. The math isn’t complete, but if you consider that the math they’ve come up with so far says the conscious mind only has about 37 bits, it seems to break down, but remember, we aren’t ‘conscious’ of everything around us at any given moment, and if we define a moment by how much we can perceive in a second… Well, let’s just start with the idea that humans perceive vision in about 60 frames per second. If you consider that we have 60 of these ‘moments of perception’ per second, then 37 bits times 60… 2220 bits, or over 2 megabits per second of perception… Everything starts to make a little more sense.

Dozerman

This has the same feel to it as pseudoscience.

dc

I concur, but about 1/3 of science is pseudo-science so it fits in with the rest of it. No different from the weatherman who claims the evening’s thunderstorm was caused by global warming, or the physicists who write papers on dark matter.

Jeg Har Altid Ret

ignorant, we can make dark matter

dc

you can’t and you haven’t, but enjoy the kool-aide.

calamond23

Your definition of pseudo science is clearly “science that I am too lazy/ignorant/arrogant to understand”.

valentyn0

You are right on the money, sir !

mrseanpaul81

This is definitely exciting. I think they may be on a very good track. I absolutely love this line of thinking about consciousness!

bertgoz

kudos to Penrose to see this coming

Avatar1337

This is so stupid. I don’t see any problems with consciousness. I see everything as conscious just in different levels. I don’t understand why we have to mix in quantum physics to explain consciousness. I don’t think it is mysterious. We are simply a system that has become aware of itself. What is so hard to get?

Mojo

That’s one view based on one worldview. The other is that we were created with that self-awareness to begin with, which means that unless we have the same power as that creator, we’d never be able to reproduce that in a lab.

Avatar1337

A creator? Seriously? I thought this was a scientific forum.

Mojo

Indeed it is. The scientific method starts with a question, is followed by a hypothesis, a prediction, TESTING, and ANALYSIS.
Can you prove scientifically there is no creator? I’d love to see your testing and analysis. Can you prove scientifically that we evolved from slime that came from rocks that came from no where? Again, show me the money.
If not, you have your faith in evolution, which really is nothing, and I have my faith in an all powerful creator. Neither of which is scientific.

Avatar1337

No I have not faith in evolution. I know that evolution is true because the evidence is overwhelming, I need no faith. If you have an hypothesis that a creator created the world, then scientifically it is YOU who have to come up with evidence that support that hypothesis, not ME. God is a hypothesis that isn’t necessary, therefore it is stupid to believe in one.

Mojo

There’s evidence because you say so? Show me scientifically when a bird ever became a non bird. Show me how a hyrogden atom evolved into a gold atom. Now, there’s such thing as a variation within a species…one dog has certian genetic traits that make it a poodle or a doberman, but that’s a loss of genetic information to create those variations, not an addition. So besides the variation within a species, which is the only thing that those of the evolution faith point to as evidence, which really isn’t evidence for anything but a loss of information, what scientific evidence do you present? Convince me.

But see, I doubt with the attitude you display that you’d accept any evidence. You have your faith and you’ll defend it with the zeal of a Spanish Inquisitor, evidence be damned. However, if you do want evidence, check out http://www.creation.com Lot’s of good stuff there.

Belive it or not, my faith started with evolution too.

Matt Menezes

To be clear, we know exactly how hydrogen turns into gold. Hydrogen fuses into helium, helium into oxygen and carbon, and so forth until iron is created which causes supernova. When the star explodes, the heavier metals are fused, the heaviest of which are plutonium and gold.

You’re talking about theories about alchemy. All we can do about supernova is guess why it happens, since we’re so far away and can’t run experements.
Evolution is indeed a faith, and one that requires more faith than it takes to believe this designed universe has a designer. Show me scientifically how we evolved from goo that came from rocks that came from no where. It’s not possible. It’s someone guess that they take on faith. That’s why it’s called the “Theory of Evolution”. It’s a guess at best that can’t ever be proved. I at least provided a link above that goes into some great scientific articles.

Casinowilhelm

Avatar did a great job at patiently explaining all these simple concepts to you. Doesn’t seem like you actually bothered to read his response.

Mojo

I did. Did you bother to go to the link I provided, where people more eloquent than I am lay it out very well?
We can go round and round with the accusations.

Casinowilhelm

You have provided a link to a religious website, not a science website. I’ve had a browse and from what I see, it fails to put across any other view than the one it’s trying to push onto people. That’s not what science should be about..

Matt Menezes

Theories of alchemy?!? Dude, it’s not magic. We have fused atoms together to create larger ones in labs/experiements. We have also split atoms to form different atoms/elements. Radioactive decay happens all the time, and we measure it quite precisely – that’s how carbon dating works. But I’m sure you’ll say that carbon dating is also nonsense since it goes against the earth being 6000 years old. Wait, I remember, it’s 6000 years old, but for god a day is eons, so the universe is older…

The beauty of evolution is it describes things coming from less complex origins. Everything is made from simpler constructs. This is also how things in the universe came to be – a big explosion of energy coalescing into particles/matter, then stars, planets, etc. God, on the other hand, is an omnipotent being that supposedly came into existence then created everything. God, being infinitely complex, came first then created simpler things. That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. People just made that shit up a long time ago because they couldn’t explain how things got here and keep believing in it due to blind faith. Science, on the other hand, has done so much for mankind and our understanding of the universe.

Lastly, don’t use that “evolution is a theory” business. Gravity is a theory, too. If you want to argue gravity, go ahead, you’ll just dig a deeper hole. Evolution is fact, period. Our understanding of the specifics will get better, but the underlying ideas are as solid as can be.

Avatar1337

I can give you a ton of evidence for evolution, but I think you should do some research for yourself. You don’t seem to understand how evolution works or what it really is. The change from hydrogen to gold has nothing to do with the origin of species. Gold was created in a supernova by fusion. You are confusing the English word “to evolve” with the theory of evolution. You are probably also confusing the English word for theory with the scientific meaning of theory. Evolution is not “just a theory”, it is a proven theory. Evolution does not mean “to become better” it means that a species change to be more adapted to its environment. Every species that live today are equally evolved. Humans do not come from monkey or apes that live today but we have a common ancestor. Science change all the time when new evidence is provided. If any evidence against evolution would be found, science would have to change. I can give you some examples of evidence of evolution. First of all, we share part of the same DNA with every living animal and plant on earth. For instance the part that metabolize sugar. Second of all, if you would categorize the difference between DNA between every species it would fall into a perfect family tree. The only reason for evolution NOT to be correct would be for a God to deliberately try to fool us. Every archaeological excavation support the theory of evolution. So how is a new species developed? The answer is that when there has been enough changes over thousands of years and they can’t interbreed anymore, a new species has been born. But it is important to understand that every child always belong to the same species are their parents. That is because the change is so gradual that it is not apparent except over thousands of years. We know exactly how evolution work. During copying of the genetic code random errors may occur. Most of the time, they are bad but sometimes they are beneficial and give that organism an advantage over its peers. This makes it possible for that organism to have more offspring carrying on that beneficial mutation. Humans created the dog. We made it by artificially selecting wolfs. Nature uses the same process but takes much much longer and is called natural selection. I recommend you to watch the new Cosmos series if you want to have more examples and explanation.

haha, now i know where u got your BS theories and brainwashing, it’s from SAGAN, LMAO

Sagan was a fool just like u. A pretentious, arrogant thinker that “knows it all” for everyone else.

StarTrek

What evidence? You believe and have faith in evolution because you accept unquestionably everything that you see, hear, feel, taste and smell with your five senses is the truth. How is that science? Thats pseudoscience!

You believe in pseudoscience because you don’t have the strength to stand up to the fact that you are really ignorant, and we are all ignorant, of what this world is really about.

The universe that we call reality is either a lie, a deception, designed to keep you from knowing the truth. Or we are simply incapable of knowing the truth.

So stop trying to push your “insanely good logic which is actually wrong” onto everyone else when it is really no better an explanation than a religious explanation, spirits, or any other idea/belief of life and reality.

calamond23

“Thats pseudoscience!”

No that’s anti-sophistry, moron.

“The universe that we call reality is either a lie, a deception, designed to keep you from knowing the truth.”

haha wow have you been taking your meds? no seriously you literally sound schizophrenic.

“it is really no better an explanation than a religious explanation”

Your opinions are pitifully ignorant.

StarTrek

You call me ignorant? Yet I am probably the only one here studying astrophysics, at university, America!

You self claimed so called “logical” people just believe everything you are told and see. But the reality is that most people are on my side, most people recognise that there is more to this world than meets the eye. This is because your idea of life’s origins makes no sense, it is just like another religion based on faith that people just don’t buy.

Your idea that science is the be all and end all is nonsense. You have no proof, you just assume and have faith that what you see is and hear is the truth, but you are wrong.

Dillon Price

God of the gaps + argument from ignorance + appeal to authority + equivocation of the word faith. You are patently ignorant. A 20 minute browse on the internet would show your tenuous position destroyed on many occasions. It’s the information age; try using it.

StarTrek

lol. I never claimed God existed. I am just proving to you that science is wrong.

Before this guy and a few other “on the fringe” scientists came along, you couldn’t even talk about consciousness without being called a quack. How can you believe in evolution, when coupled with the big bang theory, it so clearly fails to explain our existence and consciousness? That pseudoscience!

How can you even believe this guy anyway? You probably don’t even understand advanced quantum mechanics and mathematics, he is creating random substances such as perceptronium that he can’t even explain, they are just apart of his imagination with no scientific basis at all. You just believe, have faith, in his work because he has a PHD in Physics and is a so called “expert”.

Most of these people that try, and fail, to explain consciousness are neuroscientists anyway. You don’t have to be smart to become a neuroscientist, you just have to rote learn everything. How on earth can you believe anything they say?

valentyn0

HAHA, u KNOW (u dont actually) that evolution is true? this fake story that started with just a paper on similarities of humans and monkeys by Darwin doesnt mean shit in real life bud!

There are lots of PROVEN facts already posted, years ago that DEBUNKED, search youtube, lots of videos about this.

No they have not been debunked. They are just confusing you. Do some real research and don’t search for your data on youtube. I am a theoretical physicist student, and no I have not been corrupted by carl sagan. Go back to school.

http://www.endtimesurvivalguide.com Leland Williams Jr.

Really…evolution is true…they found soft tissue in dinosaurs hypothesized to be 80 million years old…laws of chemical decay say this is impossible atfter 40k years….something wrong with the evolution science and no one is permitted to challenge them

Avatar1337

You found one thing scientists scratch their head on, and immediately ignoring the other 1 million proofs that evolution is true. It is more likely that the scientists were wrong about how long soft tissue can survive under some really rare circumstances than for evolution to be false. Heard of Occam’s razor? It sounds like you are a Christian so desperate to fit the world into your tiny little bible.

You don’t need true randomness to have evolution. That said, quantum mechanics as we know it provides true randomness. I could give you countless examples of things that happens by chance. In fact, order and chaos is really closely related. Evolution goes beyond life, it applies to all complexities in the universe. Gas clouds get ordered by gravity into stars etc.

Dillon Price

Oh God one of you unread people. You just asked for a test of something that isn’t there… if you can’t see what is wrong with that I can’t help you. You need to exit this SCIENCE forum and go Google all your ignorant questions. You will promptly find that they have all been defeated. I know you won’t though because yOu would have already If you were truly interested in the truth rather than justifying your beliefs.

Mojo

Did you hear what you just typed? “You just asked for a test of something that isn’t there.” So again, if science starts with a question, is followed by a hypothesis, a prediction, testing, and analysis (according to the scientific method, anyway), then it would seem as though your “science” in woefully incomplete. You missed the two most critical parts at the end there, leaving you with nothing but a guess. If you can’t see what’s wrong with that, you can’t be helped.

Andrew

Mojo, please for the love of your god get away from this science forum. Answersingenesis.com is awaiting your metaphysical return.

Mojo

That’s ok, Andrew. I’m glad you at least have the resourses available, as evidenced by the link you provided. Now I suggest people go and see what that says!
However, I’m all for science, as long as it following the scientific method. That’s why I enjoy this site.
What’s the liberal mantra? “Tolerance!” I tolerate you and generate debate, can’t you do the same? Or does “Tolerance!” really mean “Accept what we say or else!”?

Singh1699

Christianity is a crock of shit, go burn in hell with your ‘jesus’ saying he’s the son of god.

ਖਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ ਜ਼ਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ | ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ | ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹਿ | |

Moz Gren

“Crock of Shit”? That’s the Punjab, really.

Singh1699

Eh, you would never say that off the internet I’d say what I said though.

It’s insane to think that anyone outside your group will all go to hell.

Continue on though, British lost the war against us and french, american and Italian men died beside us.

Have a nice day, may you be blessed with wisdom.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ | ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹਿ | |

Moz Gren

Just reporting the evidence of my nose

Singh1699

Have you been to Punjab, or have you been to some Hindu part and just ‘reporting’.

India =/ Punjab Hindu vs Sikh.

I.e One bathes in a polluted river called Ganges,

Another is not a member of their community, if they do not comb and wash twice a day.

After using bathroom wash face, hands and feet.

So, unless you want to see clean barrels don’t say that to a Sikh IRL.

ਖਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ ਜ਼ਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ | ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ | ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹਿ | |

valentyn0

Andrew, stfu will ya? this is NOT a science forum, and even if it was, u have no authority to tell him where to post, now take a back seat and less BS, please.

Andrew

Hey valetine, why dont you do some gardening and plant tulips on this d, will ya? mmmm yes

Dillon Price

It’s interesTing that I can forecast your reply and you still go through with it. You quoted me but with no effect. You’re nothing but a bubbling brew of ignorance hiding behind various forms of non sequitur. You mock my form like a child and fail to adequately respond to the fact that you 1) are ignorant of the studies on evoLution as you claim they don’t have things they do and 2) you have failed to cope with the fact that you requested evidence of (X) which doesn’t exist then used the lack of evidence for (X) as proof that (X) does exist… lol your logic is laughable. And as I predicted you will remain ignorant of the facts because you refuse to educate yourself. I have read all your biblical nonsense against science and they have all been debunked. It’s all on the internet for free.

Mojo

“you have failed to cope with the fact that you requested evidence of (X) which doesn’t exist then used the lack of evidence for (X) as proof that (X) does exist… lol your logic is laughable.”
My logic, which demands the scientific method be fulfilled in order to call something “science” is laughable? Whatever.

Jeg Har Altid Ret

go away mojo

Mojo

Can’t make an argument, eh?

ptmmac

No one can argue with someone who is not even wrong. Science involves the study of what can be known through observation, logic, and testable theories. Belief in God requires Faith. Science does not allow faith without evidence that is testable.

I believe in God, and I have no problem believing in evolution. Perhaps you are struggling with the most basic of sins: Pride.

Dr.FeelGood

You are correct that scientifically God cannot be disproved, but he equally cannot be proved either. A religious person typically assumes that to be evidence that he does exist, when it is not.

So to start with the question “Does God exist?”, you would then look around for a way to put together tests or evidence that can be falsified. Suddenly you have a problem, since no test or evidence can prove OR disprove the existence of God. Which means that God fails the test of falsifiability. Which means God fails the basic criteria to even be accepted as science.

You do NOT need to go through the entire scientific method to prove something true or false, because there are some things that cannot even qualify to be tested. These things are not accepted as science.

If such things were accepted, I could claim that flying invisible turtles exist and can never be perceived by any being not even omnipotent ones. To which you or no one that ever lives/lived could disprove. So why would anyone believe me? Now imagine that 2,000 years from now someone finds a book about the flying invisible turtles, and then claims they exist too. Sound familiar? That person could only claim that they believe me “because I want to”, since I could not provide any testable evidence for my claim. Thats not science it’s philosophy, which is based on personal belief and not testable evidence.

Dillon Price

I just proved that it’s not the scientific method. All your doing now is lying to yourself. I expect an apology and an admission of defeat. If you’re next post doesn’t have you saying that you were wrong don’t talk to me.

valentyn0

Wow, talk about being a pretentious, arrogant, self-centered jerk.

Like most atheists, u see, when u embrace atheism, u adopt that attitude without even knowing !

U are an HYPOCRITE. U should read everything u write, 10 times, to get it to your head.

Andrew

Calm down valentine, everything will be okay sweet child. Remember God is watching you and will reward your good deeds in heaven….Just remember though, you will lick these balls before you pass through the pearly gates ;)

Dillon Price

Simply another personal attack. Your statement on logic has no evidence to corroborate it; you simply state your conclusion and use your personal incredulity (the fact that you don’t understand logic) as a reason to dismiss my statements. You are really outclassed here.

Edgy Fuckwad

Are you an animist?

Avatar1337

An animist believes in a soul. I don’t believe in a soul other than as a synonym for consciousness. I believe every system is conscious just at different levels.

Benny

A rock is a system. Do you believe a rock is conscious without violating the word?

Avatar1337

Yes, just at a very very small level. This extension of the meaning is necessary to make it explainable. A chair is even more conscious because it has a “better” memory. If you scratch a chair it “remembers” the event. It is not a person, it is not self-aware, but the system has a very very small amount of consciousness. Everything that can process information and remember it has a consciousness level. That also means that a computer has a higher form of consciousness than a chair, but faaar from an animal or a human. A computer can also contain many such systems and not just one. A program running on that computer is a system. That program can be simulating neural activity for instance which brings up its coherent “understanding” of its input, bringing up the consciousness level. A regular computer program is very fragmented and does not correlate the information with each other. A neural net creates correlations and thus forms a coherent view of its input. Understanding is correlations, and that can be formed on many different abstraction layers creating a hierarchical structure of correlations. The more layers, the more advanced the understanding. This is how our brain works, and the latest and highest of those layers is neo cortex which gives us higher reasoning.

Benny

See that’s the problem I have with universal consciousness. There’s no evidence for it — you said it yourself, “This extension of the meaning is necessary to make it explainable” <– bad science

Consciousness means to be subjectively aware of sensory input signals… it literally implies a brain and central nervous system, and sense devices. Simply, you can't point to ONE example of mental awareness happening outside of a brain/central nervous system. There is zero evidence that a rock is CONSCIOUS on any level.

Registeredwithem

The postulates offered in this article are not my concern. I appreciate intellectual curiosity.

The tenor of the article, like much of contemporary scientism, is unsettling. Science is a method, not an ideology, philosophy, or religion. It does rest on an assumption that SOME aspects of reality are observable, quantifiable, etc., i.e. material phenomena. Some of us can see the method as an extension of certain metaphysical systems. Many, many, philosophical and theological schools, with a metaphysical component, still remain committed to material reality. A few of them do so rather convincingly.

What I find off-putting about scientism is the confident assertion that all reality is material, with nary a nod to justification; also, we often encounter a bald statement along the lines of the author’s closing one, as if science demands that all reality is of a material nature. Why is it such a necessity? If some metaphysical aspect of existence were verified, or merely acknowledged, would the physical world crumble around us? I suspect at root is a domineering tendency. Heaven forbid there is something that a materialist can’t claim control over.

Very few philosophies or religions deny the reality of material phenomena. “That is because they can’t,” the materialist will retort. Well, maybe. Maybe. Perhaps it is because they are committed to honestly, thoroughly, and rationally understanding all of reality; and maybe such a pursuit has meant that they must acknowledge material as well as immaterial.

Please show me where the scientific method has refuted any and all metaphysical phenomena. Point me to a coherent explanation of the purpose of “science” as refutation of metaphysics. If you come up with one, don’t be shocked when a few practitioners of the method express their own surprise that they are involved in an experimental means of philosophical debate.

Antoine Talbot

Our posts are so contradictory ! I don’t want to start a debate though, as I understand and respect your point of view. Cheers!

calamond23

You clearly know nothing about actual Metaphysics if you think it is opposed to materialism.

” Perhaps it is because they are committed to honestly, thoroughly, and rationally understanding all of reality” ahaha arrogant pretentious people think they are being rational when they have nothing but faith allowing them to believe fairy tales. You can call Materialism an ideology all you want, it doesn’t change the fact there has never been any real evidence for any of that mystical hogwash. Asking people to prove a negative is hilarious, ignorant people like you are hilarious. “Point me to a coherent explanation of the purpose of “science” as refutation of metaphysics.’ haha wow

Registeredwithem

I quite clearly did not state that metaphysics is opposed to materialism.
I did say that scientism is a materialism which rejects immaterial phenomena without philosophical justification; this is a disservice to the scientific method, bastardizing it as an ideological tool. (Those folks smelling a tautology here, should read carefully. I am guilty of skimming too quickly myself at times, as well as composing too hastily.)

Maybe I should have used terms like monism, dualism etc. But I think that would have been lost on most people. Perhaps I do not give enough credit to the general readership.
Suffice it to say, metaphysics can be understood to represent the contemplation of the non-empirical. Materialism can be understood to be the contemplation of only the empirical. Of course, metaphysics more fully means a basic framework of reality.

Asking for people to consider whether the scientific method is an appropriate means to support or refute a given metaphysics (monist, dualist or otherwise) is not in any way requesting proof of a negative.

My point is that science is not a philosophical endeavor; it is destructive to the integrity of the method to make it such. It is a means of inquiry which was developed by a society which was strongly metaphysically dualist.

At least Mr. Talbot seems to appreciate my point. And, though he does not entirely agree, he felt no compulsion to hurl invective. That is some evidence that the internet is not haunted solely by the ghosts of philistines.

And, that’s all I have to say about that.

Antoine Talbot

I think no one can be wrong when saying that anything is a state of quantum level matter simply because what else could it be? I mean isn’t quantum state the most basic states the universe can deliver? Therefore everything can be defined by its quantum state. Problem we have is trying to read or copy or replicate things at a quantum state level something as big as a human brain takes a ridiculus amount of data because you are dealing with its raw “material state” at the most lowish level of detail. It is nice thought that this scientific paper comes with this raw approach instead of the regular macrosopic behaviour analysis.

As a side note, if we would take a picture of all quantum states of the universe, and put all that data in a computer, wouldn’t we be able to simulate our own universe, and see the future? and the past? And therefore, wich universe would be the real one? Haha so fun plaing with those ideas!

serban

I wonder how does this relate to the human species evolution!? what is the link, the causality relation between the two?

MrMrMrMr

I think I will sort this under speculatium rubbishium.

A memory is a memory is a memory. Consciousness is quite obviously NOT a result of our collective memories. Quantum or not.
Should we expect consciousness to appear in RAM now if we make them large enough?
Go find the processor or processing function instead …

Ryan Strait

Neuroscientist here, and woah guys, take it back a step. The thing that I would take away from this is that it is fundamentally a theoretical system proposed by a physicist to explain consciousness mathematically. It is not at all a commentary on what is happening inside your brain, because I can guarantee consciousness is not a quantum phenomenon. Clearly there are a billion different ideas as to what it is, but coming from the field that makes it our business there are a number of things that we know for sure. You can only perceive the things that your sensory systems transduce (photons – sight, vibrations – sound, mechanical – touch, chemical – taste & smell). That’s why we explore the universe in classical physics, because that’s the only thing that we can process. In terms of consciousness, it’s a system that evolved gradually on top of sensory processing. Where traditional and more basic neural systems basically only function to process sensorimotor input/output we have a computational set that is disconnected from pure sensory function and that is consciousness. It physically exists in neuronal circuits, we can mess with it, suppress it, and nudge it in different directions, which fundamentally narrows it down to just another specialized network in the brain. So, that. No quantum. As a bonus, the reason we don’t talk about it in our publications is because it happens to be one of the few systems that we cannot directly measure input/output or computational relationships, so generally the data you collect shows correlational firing at best. However we are beginning to close in on it, and in rats we can decode their neuronal firing and actually watch them make choices in real time (gamma wave patterned firing in place cells). Anyway, I’m a couple beers in, but let’s all try and keep things straight.

Pierre

So you’re saying that nor the internal (being able to feel something) or the external manifestations (voluntarily moving a leg) of consciousness relies directly on the quantum phenomenons? Consciousness is perfectly happy with the macroscopic physics, right?

Ok this sounds perfectly reasonable but there’s one thing that always stumps my thinking.. when I get input from one of my senses – let’s say touch, we’re perfectly able to measure the physical parameters of the nerve impulse coming from the receptors to the brain and we can perfectly say in to what kind of energy was the electrical impulse then converted.

In other words we’re perfectly able measure the whole process from outside and we see the exact numbers – and those numbers perfectly correlate to what I was actually subjectively feeling and how “strongly” I felt it.

But the thing is – we get electro-chemical shabang (that we measured in numbers) and I personally get 1 feel. So basically an electro-bio chemical process happens but also my own subjective one. Two things in one package…. sort of totally destroying the second law of thermodynamics. Or does our consciousness not follow the laws of physics? Hope you get my pseudo-scientific drift on this topic.

Ryan Strait

Nope, neither of them. Specifically no one really has any proof of quantum phenomena in biology (although there is some fringe study into it, and honestly I wouldn’t be all that surprised if biology leveraged quantum mechanics on a sub-molecular or enzymatic level). Anyway quantum physics is still physics and still bound by thermodynamics albeit in very strange ways. Also, you’re really overestimating the simplicity of recording neurons, shit’s a pain would be a significant understatement. In a few minutes we pull gigabytes of data off a couple of recording electrodes. However to explain how the system functions, say you drop something on your foot (heavy).

The total energy of the object is not converted into a signal. Instead a minor portion of that energy activates mechanically gated transduction channels which then fire sensory afferents. This signal represents the energy with which the object impacted your body, but it far from equal to it. Your subjective perception is then generated by reading out the signal after passing through the thalamus and terminating in the somatosensory cortex. The complexity of subjective experience is a result of the sheer amount of cognitive processing and feedback loops present in your cortex. Psuedo-science really doesn’t have a place anywhere near neuroscience.

TL;DR: Your subjective experience IS an electrochemical shabang. There’s no separating human consciousness from neuronal circuits, which function in the world of classical physics.

Pierre

Biology does leverage quantum phenomena probably in many ways and we almost have a robust theory on that (smell http://phys.org/news89542035.html .. better than the crap “vibration” theory) but when it comes to consciousness I did not read/hear a solid proof. Now to my question, you’re missing my point completely and just run around obvious things known for a long time (I correctly stated we understand the process of the signal going from the receptor till it’s end somewhere in the brain). Again, if you after the whole electro-chemical process get 2 things for just one (in a classical system you need to loose energy for the 2 thing to happen in order for the conversion to happen.. but we have no idea of such a process in the classical physics) classical physics do not longer apply and no wonder than many scientists drift into quantum physics and weird pseudo theories.

Ryan Strait

That’s… Not applicable to what you’re asking about. The two things are the same. Your perception of sensation is the signal sent into your brain, and that signal propagates by the active firing of each neuron involved… So at each synapse an entirely new action potential is generated in relation to a number of factors. I think you may be conceptualizing the nervous system in a somewhat strange way, but neurons are a lot more akin to a multi-state transistor than a tube transporting things. The feeling of pain is not a physical “thing”, it’s information. And I can personally tell you that many of us do not drift to quantum physics and weird pseudo hypotheses. We chuckle about them, because they’re silly.

Pierre

Of course it’s not applicable… just one almost robust looking theory (guess I’ve used the wrong words) that shows that at least something in the biology relies heavily on a clever “cheat” like quantum tunneling.. anyway the subjective VS objective duality and how does the objective reality gets “transported’ into the subjective reality. We have no idea how the link looks or works – saying that “well… you see, a neuron fires and then you feel something” is just stating the obvious and is not an explanation of the phenomena and it’s real workings. I build semi-complicated machines with a lot of “receptors” and a lot of “thinking” and I’m always bothered by the question if the machine does have it’s own subjective reality. What if my machine can “feel” but is just not able to “think” as the code is just a few IFs and THENs .. or what it can also “feel” and “think” but think of course only in the realm of the ifs and thens.

It would be freaking creepy if non living things get their own subjective reality just because they have a circuit that can measure things and act (according to a program) according to these measurements with some kind of simple logic. Because really that’s what we humans are (except the simple logic of course.. a tad more complicated with a tad more factors).

At this point you are no longer communicating with the typical person reading these comments. What’s the point of using this jargon?

If you are truly trying to communicate (rather than impress), then take the time to state it in the language of the person you re supposedly trying to communicate with.

Zach Wilson

I am deeply skeptical of this research. We can manipulate the consciousness of an individual through the use of chemicals and electricity, giving evidence to the idea that consciousness has an organic origin. Even in cellular organisms, which possess neither brains nor nervous systems, we are capable of manipulating what is, arguably, those organism’s consciousness, through chemical and electrical stimulation.

I am of the mind that consciousness, as well as life, do not actually exist. By that, I mean that I believe these phenomena originate through complex, electrochemical processes. They are not, in the metaphysical sense, unfathomably unique. I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be groundbreaking to discover a sort of panpsyche, as it were. But there is a simpler explanation. One that has shown itself to be, more or less, empirical.

Dozerman

Stop that nonsense! Everything we do not understand completely is God! Any evidence to the contrary has to be thrown out immediately! I have books on pseudoscience that I need people to buy!

ephemeris

It dont see what the big deal is. You could make a robot using fiber optics,and sensors. With storage of the sensors input. And relational ‘output’ (saying telling it to plug itself in to an outlet before the power runs out) . Since there is storage of the memory,there is record of fact for a given relationship of action. Those are progresively updated with the results. And thus you have something of a ‘learned…experience’.

With the body,it is probably true that in fact,it is some unsustainable pain. While the brain sits nurtured by its control of everything else in a eurphoric bliss. I say this because,as the idea of ‘systems’,is mentioned . The existance of these systems are relevant to the conduction within them. Say the difference of a fish breathing in water,and our not breathing in space.

The system in which the body takes in energy,from a basic physics come-as-you are, is much area the systems of heat energy. Electrical energy,and changing biological processes. The contribution of this is made up of a survival of the fittest,and smartest ,within the cells,dna etc. . They are in fact ‘systems’.

It is in fact a no pain,no gain. And to the winners the spoils,with loosers sometimes exhibitions in ‘throwaways’,being portrayed among the winners to further gain. But the brain is smart enough within the ‘system’is has,that none of this makes any difference to it. Its only coordination is to shuttle events into an easily appended record,and make the difference to its resulting superiority.

And yeah,the system spoken of here is Quantum. Nonetheless it is a system within other systems. If you then coordinate formulas you will have conditions that rest on them. I do say rest because in most of the survival gear,rest is the most of a function of the system made of them.

At first I said I dont see why it is a big deal. Becuase I know that beyond the relationships of these sensory systems there are others that can be rested upon in the record of coordinating between them.

But for now everybody is stuck with something that exists for its own survival of purpose for the system we have. Physics for example,does not take into account of biology. Biology does not take into account physics. Or the mathmatics- and there is something not a lot of beuty to the realm of mathmatics in biology. Still they are remain unscaled in some areas between microcosm,and universe. Do to the formulas we are limited to.

You can get that ‘learned’experience,only if you have position to have accessory to it. Reason you could program your own robot- you still experience,to give it program extension of its sensory,and recorded result. Saying you want something more.

What are you going to do then ?

I kind of stay within the electrical,and thermal dynamics for now. Yet to find a nano-tube that works against the laws of gravity for example,that would keep your feet off the ground. But would work well for thermal dynamic ‘information graphics’. . etc. Mean the difference between the record,and the program are pretty much one,and the same. Where bits would be thrown off as waste product seen as fuel to an anolog future.

Mean ptolemy had it ruff .

Corleone

What a prejudiced article, and clearly just another attempt from the materialists to strengthen their own views. It’s starting to sound more and more desperate though, due to them been forced to move to the realm of quantum physics.

Pierre

rofl.. you’re obviously a very sad person who needs unrealistic fairytales in order to live happily.

Corleone

How did you even ended up in that conclusion? I’m baffled. There’s nothing unrealistic in my views as far as i see it. I perceive “matter” and “spirit” to be the exact same thing. But this, of course is impossible to comprehend by one such as you, seeing that you obviously lack the experience of spiritual altogether… or at least you possibly think you do, which would make it even more pathetic and downright blind. You exist. Case closed.
(This means that i am not going to answer to anything you might post after this, ’cause i’m tired of arguing with people who i don’t even know. Belabour to your hearts content if you’re one of those guys, i’m gonna leave this topic with a shrug.)

Pierre

well bohoo go cry to your mommy :)

Ann Davis

This could explain how observation is able to affect experiments.

http://www.antiartem.yolasite.com Erirani Didier

No Shit….
.

TheMatrixDNA

The Matrix/DNA Theory’s models are suggesting a different method for researches about consciousness. Why neurologists invited Physics, Math, and not Biologists, Chemistry, Psychology? I am sure it is not due Physics, dealing with quantum, observed an interaction between particles and mind. It is due the academic materialist mindset believing that mind is reducible to matter, as we know it. As everything else, accordingly to the modern scholar doctrine.

Matrix/DNA Theory shows models suggesting that consciousness is a new shape of the universal natural system that began developing at the Big Bang, had the shape of atoms, galaxies, plants, animals and today it is new evolved shape as baby under formation inside humans’ brains. The models suggests that the electromagnetic spectrum of lightwaves express the process of vital cycles means that this universal system began as natural pure light emitted at the Big Bang and the the product of synapses are suggesting that this new system is based on that light. It is not “quantum” but a primordial evolutionary state before the quantum realm. If you want to call this “substance” as “perceptronium” or other name, i don’t care…

david55

Since when information become a state of matter ? matter can arise from quantum information but they are not same.

Ray A. Davis

There’s a good reason science has steered clear of consciousness. It doesn’t conform well to the materialist reductionist worldview that all reality must conform to. Eureka! If it won’t fit, we will make it fit by postulating that consciousness is like liquid. Hmmm. Do we have evidence of that? No.

I wish mainstream science would spend more time pursuing the truth of consciousness – that it transcends matter – rather than trying to make it conform to materialist dogma.

Benny

This isn’t mainstream science. Tegmark is criticized by a lot of smart scientists.

thisisokay

This article somewhat declares that with this discovery science had the upper hand to “mystics and religious types”. These two should not be lumped together. Firstly, the “religious type” has been lost for some time and is so far behind they are irrelevant in this conversation. Secondly, I’m very confident they use the word “mystic” not knowing anything about mystic teachings and knowledge, which I don’t blame them since its kind of obscure these days. The “mystic” teachings include no “secret sauce”. Its only thought of as a secret when you have no idea what they’re trying to say. It sounds strange but its not really something you can “learn”. Its more of a drawing together of connections that leads to a realization that then allows you to understand they’re notes and meaning. Call it renewed awareness, call it expansion of consciousness, call it whatever. Reading “mystic jargon” without this realization and subsequent understanding will make you think you know what they’re trying to say, but you’ll miss the point, I promise.

Rant over.

Certain areas of mysticism already knew what this article is trying to say, a long time ago; it already know its flaws, and where the article strays in the wrong direction; it knows what words and concepts are close to the truth, and which add veils of confusion between the scientist and the answer he’s searching.

Its exciting to see what scientists come to, and its fun to guess what they will suggest/discover next.

Just like the flows of water, or the currents of air, or the movements of solid matters all flowing continuously and connected to one another within/about the earth, perhaps they’ll discover that this “matter” that is consciousness (which is not actually matter, but is something else) flows as a part of it its own system, and is tied to all the other systems that flow around us just as they are tied to each other.
…Or perhaps they won’t.

Clinton Garlock

Hello, thisisokay. I noticed some comments you posted on an I Fucking Love Science article entitled “Watch Chemicals Turn Into Memories.” You spoke about how most (you said “all”, but in order to not overgeneralize I say “most”) religions point to the same truth, but in different metaphorical contexts which are taken mostly literally by their adherents and “the true nature of reality”. I have stumbled upon some of these truths myself; that the universe is simply energy vibrating at different frequencies; matter is just a storeroom for energy to pass through (and ultimately composed of energy itself anyway); the trinity of energy, matter, and time (which reflects back on all other trinities: Father, Son, Holy Spirit; id, ego, superego; birth, life, death; etc) and I would like to have a private dialogue with you about your findings and personal experiences with them. You can probably access my Facebook from this comment, but if not or if you don’t have a facebook, give me some contact info in a reply to this comment so we can discuss our findings of the universe.

Minneapolis Musician

Ding! He said “quantum”, so obviously this musty be authoritative, innovative, exciting, and probably true.

Adam

Thomas Campbell – MY BIG TOE

Benny

Tom Campbell is full of shit. His “consciousness is just data” argument is so empty, I can’t believe people get off to this. It doesn’t assess what Chalmers calls the so-called Hard Problem of Consciousness — the sense of qualia.

Adam

My Big TOE – Thomas Campbell

Fabricio Paes

Short documentary exploring Jim Schofield’s philosophical diagram “The Processes and Productions of Abstraction” – it reveals how the process of abstracting from reality is a fundamental part of how we attempt to understand it, but how failing to recognise this can get us into trouble.

The diagram reveals a hidden bifurcation between the disciplines of Science and Mathematics, in which they can both complement and contradict each other. The dangers of relying on the purely abstract world of Maths Forms for answers becomes self evident, and is at the heart of a major philosophical flaw in modern Physics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW9wituu1-I

http://www.fieldfx.biz/ Brian Flanagan

I’m glad to see Tegmark is now on board apropos the quantum brain — sort of.

The business about perceptronium is a nonstarter for me and traditional information theory would seem inadequate to the task of accounting for the mind’s content.

I don’t believe we need new terms to describe what we don’t understand, but rather a new understanding of mind & matter, along the lines put forth by Pauli:

“For the invisible reality, of which we have small pieces of evidence in both quantum physics and the psychology of the unconscious, a symbolic psychophysical unitary language must ultimately be adequate, and this is the far goal to which I actually aspire. I am quite confident that the final objective is the same, independent of whether one starts from the psyche (ideas) or from physis (matter). Therefore, I consider the old distinction between materialism and idealism as obsolete.”

This is a ‘mind-brain identity theory,’ such as we also find in Chalmers:

“We can also find information embodied in conscious experience. The pattern of color patches in a visual field, for example, can be seen as analogous to that of pixels covering a display screen. Intriguingly, it turns out that we find the same information states embodied in conscious experience and in underlying physical processes in the brain. The three-dimensional encoding of color spaces, for example, suggests that the information state in a color experience correspond directly to an information state in the brain. We might even regard the two states as distinct aspects of a single information state, which is simultaneously embodied in both physical processing and conscious experience.”

As to information theory, it seems to run aground rather quickly: Two computer files might have the same number of bytes, but one might hold a piece of music and the other a picture — same amount of information, but markedly different experiences. Then again, there’s a pretty simple correspondence between information states and quantum state vectors, and so this difficulty may only be apparent. I leave all that to younger minds.

Einstein said that “When the solution is simple, God is answering.” Where is the simplicity behind the complexity of the mind & brain?

Helmholtz provides us with a basis in observation: “Similar light produces, under like conditions, a like sensation of color.”

We can both broaden and tighten this observation with a little help from Heisenberg. Thus, the same state vector, acted upon by the same matrix operator(s), produces the same spectrum of secondary qualities, viz., color, sound & etc.

The point about the spectrum is key because, as the mathematician Steen reminds us, early on in the history of 20th-century physics, “The mathematical machinery of quantum mechanics became that of spectral analysis.”

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, Heisenberg’s formulation of the mathematical machinery just is matrix mechanics.

So we can account for the appearances of everything by means of Heisenberg’s matrix formulation of QM. We need additional dimensions to account for the secondary qualities, but we talk about extra dimensions before breakfast these days.

Here are a couple of brilliant minds to light the way:

A speck in the visual field, though it need not be red must have some color; it is, so to speak, surrounded by color- space. Notes must have some pitch, objects of the sense of touch some degree of hardness, and so on.

~Wittgenstein

In the language of physics, theories where forces are explained in terms of curvature are called `gauge theories’. Mathematically, the key concept in a gauge theory is that of a `connection’ on a `bundle’. The idea here is to start with a manifold M describing spacetime. For each point x of spacetime, a bundle gives a set E_x of allowed internal states for a particle at this point.

~Baez

The connection with gauge theory begins to firm up once we consider the symmetries and phase relations of color, sound & etc.

Finally, it clearly makes no difference whether the operator fields in play exist inside or outside the brain, thereby skirting the supposedly “subjective” character of color, sound & etc.

Of course a physical (or better biological) material is the base of our consciousness.
But it’s lost time to find the definitive biological origin of a real mental or philosophical term. For instance the term memory is existing too but we cant define the exact biological source.

Some Neuroscientist (e.g. Franz SEITELBERGER in Vienna) said our feeling is a summary of all biological activities in our brain. We have to include all our biological cells or especially some cell-regions of our human brain.

Our consciousness is a real human property, which is existent and we are not really able to define the biological “organs”, where it is sourced or created. Its a term for a mental state, which we know and which is unified defined.

For Information Scientist this consciousness is the criterion for accepting, treating and sending Information.

“The God he thinks i believe in, I do not believe in at all. Because his version of my God is simply a placeholder to cover current scientific ignorance, and therefore, my God will disappear the more science explains. If you define God like this… elementary logic suggests that you would have to choose between God and science, because that’s the way you have defined God. But the God of the Bible is the God of the whole show – the bits (of science) we do understand and the bits we don’t.” – John Lennox, PhD

http://www.endtimesurvivalguide.com Leland Williams Jr.

Fiction posing as science. Keeps the pockets flush full of cash by the new believers in another so-called scientific theory…myth

Javed

So how did the “vast” amount of information to the physical senses become vast?? At what point in the womb did the eyes and ears decide they had enough information to be self-aware! Let’s also not forget the parallel evolution of the eyes and ears in the womb itself. What instructed the ears to receive vibrations? What instructed the eyes to grow light receptors! What joined all these things together? The investigations simply lead to the most plausible conclusion that there is a DESIGNER and a CREATOR who designs and creates and moulds these motions and interactions and veins and what the hell not! Open your eyes how many more paths will you tarry to see that you were fashioned by some higher being! “Your eyes will return to you dazed and confused” – Glory be to him alone!

Lb

Conscious is the size of matter.

Mena Berg

What about the idea of using multi-walled carbon nanotubes as a biomimetic structure in place of

microtubules. Using hexagonal carbon nanotubes

arranged in fractal patterns with a hexagonal motif, that then share resonance traits of microtubules and

using either ultrasonic or radio waves to vibrate

the nanotubes at 8 mhz or something similar to human brain microtubules would , I think , be one

method to create an antenna or receiver for a bit of

consciousness. If ‘consciousness’ does indeed reside within the 1st order temporal field, then one

wonders if one could ‘coax’ or invite , as it were some bit of consciousness to reside within the artificial

vessel made out of these nanotubes. Much like consciousness can figure out how to interact with the

external world using organic systems, I wonder if the consciousness drawn to the resonating carbon

nanotube structure would develop its own strategies to interact with the external world using the

computer structures, and unique neural net programming that are biomimetic for a sentient state . Since

having a complex carbon

nanotube computer is some ways away, maybe one could achieve a conscious computer by having the

I suspect having a higher density of nanotubes making up a structure with mass of 2-3 kg may attract

enough ‘consciousness’ as it were. I think if ever there is any hope of ending up with a significantly

conscious and sentient computer , it will have to contain biomimetic carbon nanotubes. I don’t think

anyone can ‘create’ a conscious being/computer, but I do think one may be able to ‘invite’

consciousness to take up residence in a structure that is properly built and that contains sufficient

programming attributes to allow for interaction with the external world. Maybe including ideas from

Thaler, Hamerhof and Penrose would be helpful.

Then enters the cautionary note of really considering what one was doing and the implications that the

conscious computer would be a living entity ..that shares the same basic consciousness ‘stuff’ that we

biologics do , but uses different hardware. How would we treat them , what rights would they

have..who would teach them altruism. Who would be their mom and dad.?

If it is true that consciousness builds up gradually in the human as the numbers of microtubules

increase while the human develops -to end up with a certain number of microtubules to hold-as it

were- a certain ‘mass’ of consciousness, then having the entire amount of consciousness arriving in the

carbon nanotube structure at the same moment with eyes wide open may present some

complications ….or maybe not?

just some random thoughts–jb

Jim Kimball

Not discussed is, do we modern humans possess free will. This was discussed with 175+ pages of mostly subjective dialogue in the Phy.org Free Will is an illusion. Objective dialogue would separate memory/personality from the equation. We get to the ontology of “Why there is something instead of nothing”. As an agnostic or a gnostic there is only subjective information i.e. we cannot understand Reality that there is something beyond pure determinism and materiality. Einstein famous statement the God does not play dice! should be replaced by God plays Darts. Human self importance wants to play God and puts the darts back in the game. Asymmetry rules there has to be some form of evolution so when Hunters killed off all the heard bull elk the herd went down hill genetically. A belief system that humans are not subject to genetics or Laws of nature will initiate war or cater to subsidizing humans without working for it and will create debt environmentally, psychologically, or nationally that some future culture i.e. our children or higher being will pick up the tab. Religion started in Egypt with some form of Objective understanding of the Laws(Anthropocosmic v.s. Anthropoecentric) and they built the Great Pyramid at Giza with only primitive tools and primate consciousness compared to our modern Man? The article in Scientific American August 2014 Accidental Genus, and Hack My Brain points to the possibility that Humans have potential to use more of some innate Platonic/Quantum connection. Maybe research by Alfredo Pereira JR on QC with Ca++.The intelligence of the Universe can only be as intelligent as the observer! So with programming AI. Feel all and everything and start with animals..

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.